Reading Prompt #11

RICHARDSON Ch. 6. The Social Web: Learning Together
BLACKBOARD - Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004).
Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the Digital Divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588.

Share an idea of two about how you could use the ideas from Richardson with ESL students.

What is the "digital divide?' And why do Warschauer et al argue that this term may longer be applicable. What are the issues they found regarding differences in technology use with ELLs and other low socioeconomic students. What are some ways you could address this in your own schools or programs?

Richardson’s chapter on the Social Web once again reiterates the notion of social interaction in education. I admit I’m getting a bit overwhelmed with the many ways in which technology can be used in the classroom and approached this chapter with a bit of skepticism. However, I was intrigued by Richardson’s discussion of Diigo. As my RSS feeds have gotten way out of hand, I think social bookmarking with a tool like Diigo may help me better organize information I want to keep track of. I’ve taken the first step by creating a Diigo account. For personal research, I will probably keep the sites I bookmark public. For classroom purposes, though, I like that you can create private groups and use features such as “annotation”, “highlight”, and “sticky notes” to draw attention to specific passages of text. I might experiment with using Diigo to respond to students’ blogs, as suggested in the example of humanities teacher, Clay Burrell (p. 94). I think Diigo would also be a helpful tool in collaborating with other ESL educators and colleagues to share resources.

Warschauer et al. shared an interesting discussion on technology and equity in different socioeconomic school settings. When hearing the term “digital divide’, one tends to think of the gaps that exist in terms of access to technology. The article cites studies, which indeed have shown that “computer and Internet access is distributed unequally by race, income, and education” (p. 563), but also that these gaps are slowly decreasing. Warschauer and his colleagues argue that one should consider not merely the distribution of technology, but also how this technology is used, particularly in education.

So in their study, they compared 5 high schools in low socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhoods and 3 high schools in high SES neighborhoods. Findings were differentiated in terms of “performativity” (measurable skills performance, but outside the context of purposeful learning), “workability” (how easily the technology could be accessed and used), and “complexity” (the integration of computers and teaching). Some clear differences emerged in the way technology was used in these different settings. In terms of performativity, the same pattern was observed across both socioeconomic contexts in that it was common for teachers to focus on technology skills as “an end in themselves” without integrating them into curricular goals. However, the impact appeared to be greater on students in low SES schools. Teachers in these settings operated from the view that most of their students had no home access to computers (although a greater percentage did than was perceived) and therefore focused much of their teaching on basic computer tasks. Their students were also more easily distracted by novelties of particular software programs. Workability issues were also a big factor in low SES schools, because these schools did not have the necessary resources to provide much-needed support for educators and equipment maintenance. But I think the complexity issue has the biggest impact on SES students. Teachers in low SES schools felt immense pressure to focus instruction on raising test scores, which tended to win out over “integrating technology” and as mentioned earlier, computer time that was used focused on non-academic tasks. Another “complexity” challenge was that low SES schools had roughly 3 times as many English language learners (30%) compared to high SES schools. Many classes in the low SES schools included students with varied levels of language ability, complicating teaching in all aspects, including technology. These schools did not appear to have structures and resources in place to address the needs of their large ELL populations. The researchers conclude that although many of the issues they studied were evident in both educational contexts, the social factors involved caused different results and should be addressed in educational policy.

I’m sure to face these challenges in the future. It seems a bit discouraging as many of these “challenges” require solutions at a policy or funding level. However, the issue of “integration” can certainly be addressed by engaging students in meaningful computer interaction. I think that many of the problems cited in the article describing learners’ difficulties with web searches and the overuse of spelling and grammar aids can be dealt with in the classroom. I don’t see these as huge obstacles, just some focused instruction for ELLs who need it. Perhaps entering the field of teaching with an attitude that views technology as an effective tool in collaborative education may go a long way too? If not, I may need to pursue a career in education policy instead!